"The evidence that bicycling on sidewalks and similar facilities is more hazardous than bicycling on streets is overwhelming."

From "Adult Bicyclists in the U.S." by Dr. William Moritz:

Relative danger index 24.8 times as high for sidewalk riding as for major street without bicycle facilities. (ADULT BICYCLISTS IN THE UNITED STATES - CHARACTERISTICS AND RIDING EXPERIENCE IN 1996, William E. Moritz, Ph.D., Professor (Emeritus) Human Powered Transportation, University of Washington, Seattle WA)

"A recent study in Helsinki showed that it is safer to cycle on streets amongst cars than on our two-way cycle paths along streets. It is hard to imagine that our present two-way cycling network could be rebuilt. But in those countries and cities which are just beginning to build their cycling facilities, two-way cycle paths should be avoided in urban street networks.

Even in more advanced cycling countries like Denmark and in the Netherlands, with a lot of cyclists and with their one-way lanes and paths, cycling is still much more dangerous than car driving or public transport. "

Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston published in the ITE Journal, Sept/Oct 1994 (from the Institute of Transportation Engineers):

"The average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway. The risk on the sidewalk is higher than on the roadway for both age groups, for both sexes, and for wrong-way travel. The greatest risk found in this study is 5.3 times the average risk for bicyclists over 18 traveling against traffic on the sidewalk."

"Even right-way sidewalk bicyclists can cross driveways and enter intersections at high speed, and they may enter from an unexpected position and direction for instance, on the right side of overtaking right-turning traffic. Sidewalk bicyclists are also more likely to be obscured at intersections by parked cars, buildings, fences, and shrubbery; their stopping distance is much greater than a pedestrian's, and they have less maneuverability."

There are of course many more supporting expert opinions which are easily found. These only scratch the surface, but should be more than enough to convince a novice.

John S. Allen is one of the more reasonable of the VC party liners, but this is pure horse hockey. He discredits himself.

And your expert credentials are...?

Here are some of John S. Allen's:

BICYCLING AFFILIATIONS
2003- Member, Board of Directors, League of American Bicyclists, national bicyclists' organization. 1989-1993, Member, Consumer Affairs Committee, drafted policy on helmet laws. New England Regional Director's Distinguished Service Award, 1991. Founder and member of Massachusetts State Legislative Committee, 1982-1983. Initiated effort for bicycle headlight bill signed into law in 1983 and drafted helmet bill signed into law in 1993. State Legislative Representative, 1984- . League member 1979-.

1990 Revised Basic Bicycling booklet for League of American Bicyclists.

1988-1994 Contributing Editor, American Bicyclist magazine.

1987 Wrote booklet Bicycling Street Smarts, about correct and safe techniques for urban riding (Rodale Press, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida Departments of Transportation and on the Internet). New edition published by Rubel Bikemaps, 2002. Total circulation over 400,000 copies.

1985-1986 Consultant to Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston, selecting routes for the Massachusetts Bicycle Map; the routes were later adopted by Rubel Bikemaps for its series of bicycle touring maps; continuing consultation with Rubel Bikemaps 1994-present.

1980-1983 Participant and workshop leader at annual meetings of the Bicycle Network, an international bicyclists' advocacy group.

CYCLING BACKGROUND
Bicycling for transportation and recreation since 1964, averaging 2,000-5,000 miles per year in recent years, more than half in Boston urban traffic in all seasons, weather conditions and at all times of day; the rest in tours of 20-100 miles per day. Travel by bicycle in and around San Francisco; Los Angeles; Portland, Oregon; New York; Philadelphia; Baltimore; Washington; Montréal; Paris; Taichung, Taiwan; Inchon, Korea and other cities. I own six bicycles, specialized for different purposes (folding bike, day touring bike, long-distance touring bike, mountain bike, "trashmo" for city riding, tandem.) I assemble and maintain all of my bicycles myself.

My credentials are that I'm not an expert. I've referred many people to John S. Allen's writings but, when it comes to his views on sidewalk riding, he's full of it. It's too bad he accepts the party line and is unwilling to take a critical look at the evidence.

My credentials are that I'm not an expert. I've referred many people to John S. Allen's writings but, when it comes to his views on sidewalk riding, he's full of it. It's too bad he accepts the party line and is unwilling to take a critical look at the evidence.

My credentials are that I'm not an expert. I've referred many people to John S. Allen's writings but, when it comes to his views on sidewalk riding, he's full of it. It's too bad he accepts the party line and is unwilling to take a critical look at the evidence.

I'm not "VC" or "PC" or any of that, but I've never heard anything to convince me riding the sidewalk ISN'T hazardous compared to the street. Unless you're in a really laid back suburb or out in the country riding on the sidewalk is pretty effing dumb. Anybody who would be looking out for you on the road won't really think to look on the sidewalk, rendering you invisible, you have to follow pedestrian rules, making your travel time longer, pedestrians won't think to look out for you, there are tons of blind corners and such on sidewalks. It's just kind of a silly thing to do unless you're a little kid and don't know better.

Even in more advanced cycling countries like Denmark and in the Netherlands, with a lot of cyclists and with their one-way lanes and paths, cycling is still much more dangerous than car driving or public transport.

OK, let's all drive cars. Cycling is just too dangerous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleBigMan

"The average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway."

OMG! 1.8 times. Is that the risk of death or simply the risk of an accident of any kind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleBigMan

"Wrong-way sidewalk travel is 4.5 times as dangerous as right-way sidewalk travel."

Wow, what a revelation! And this is relevant how?

Give me a frickin' break! Show me some evidence that sidewalk cycling is actually more dangerous than cycling on the road. The burden of proof is on those who claim sidewalk cycling is dangerous.

They've been trying for years and haven't come up with diddly squat so far.

I've always respected Mr. Allen but it's interesting that he is LAB Regional Director, New York/New England, and 'sidewalk riding is dangerous' is the LAB party line.

If it weren't for the fact that some people actually believe the party line propaganda, it'd be laughable.

My opinion of it, is it may FEEL safer, but if you are not behaving as pedestrian like as possible, then you are just adding to your risk factor.

IMO about 7mph is reasonable on a sidewalk...just pay attention. The real risk factor is at interesctions and parking lots, where a car may either not notice you or miscalculate your speed.

Most often I'e seen are cars will block the pedestrian lane (sidewalk or crosswalk), often requiring a speeding rider to have no nail the brakes. The other is right hand turns, where they don't notice the rider until they just hit them. It's those two situations alone why I keep insisting if anyone rides the sidewalk, while they are to behave like a pedestrian.

The other side is pedestrian safety....if they don't feel safe with the way a person is riding their bike on the sidewalk...then they either need to adjust their riding style or get on the road....after all, a sidewalk was designed explicitly for pedestrians, while roads were designed for vehicles (like bikes).

basically it boils down to rideaccordng to the path you are on, and what you feel is safe on a sidewalk doesn't matter...it's whats safe to the people walking it that matters.

Of course, for someone who understand how traffic works, and rides accordingly, sidewalk cycling is no more dangerous than roadway cycling.

The assertion that sidewalk cycling is more dangerous is based on studies of average cyclists who probably have little understanding of what situation is more hazardous than another, and are essentially riding at the mercy of motorists seeing them. Those people are less likely to be seen on sidewalks, and, hence, are more (1.8 times, apparently) at risk than when riding on the roadway.

Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston published in the ITE Journal, Sept/Oct 1994 (from the Institute of Transportation Engineers):

"The average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway. The risk on the sidewalk is higher than on the roadway for both age groups, for both sexes, and for wrong-way travel. The greatest risk found in this study is 5.3 times the average risk for bicyclists over 18 traveling against traffic on the sidewalk."

The researchers showed the same sloppy mischaracterization/misuse of the term "risk" as their mentor. Nowhere in their "risk" study is accident severity level evaluated. A risk analysis that does not factor in the severity of the various mishaps is WORTHLESS for evaluating comparative risk. Except possibly for those researchers with a predetermined agenda to "prove."

Not surprisingly the researchers suggested Effective Cycling Instruction as a likely candidate for risk reduction (with no supporting evidence.) One of the researchers is an instructor in that program; the other researcher is an associate of the owner of the program; a program whose promotion is predicated on such sophomoric risk analysis.

Okay, say that sidewalk riding is ONLY %10 more dangerous,(and I think there's really no question that it is, whether you agree with %80 or %2,) what possible advantage does it serve? Or is this an "I think I'll be contrary just to troll"-situations?

Okay, say that sidewalk riding is ONLY %10 more dangerous,(and I think there's really no question that it is, whether you agree with %80 or %2,) what possible advantage does it serve? Or is this an "I think I'll be contrary just to troll"-situations?

You can "say" anything you like; that doesn't make for a credible evaluation of risk.

The cyclist(s) concerned deem "it" the best choice at that time and that place for that cyclist.

Presumably such cyclists don't give a dang about WAGs and meaningless statistics about relative "risk" that are unquestioned by some individuals on Internet discussion groups

I may have misconstrued you as a "sidewalks Only" type of guy, and you in turn mistook me for a VC hardliner. You can't be all bad, since, like me, you use quotation marks a lot. I think it's exceptable in rare instances to go on the sidewalk, but if most of your riding is on them, you've got problems.

I may have misconstrued you as a "sidewalks Only" type of guy, and you in turn mistook me for a VC hardliner. You can't be all bad, since, like me, you use quotation marks a lot. I think it's exceptable in rare instances to go on the sidewalk, but if most of your riding is on them, you've got problems.

True, and the "problem" could be that a rational cyclist would view the alternative to the sidewalk, at certain places and times, as a worse choice than the sidewalk.

Not all cyclists place the same emphasis on maximizing speed or choosing cycling technique IAW theoretical guesswork.

You can "say" anything you like; that doesn't make for a credible evaluation of risk.

I-Like-To-Bike, your position is cleary understood from the majority of your posts. What is not clear is what scientific studies you are basing your points on.

As you said, one can say anything one likes; that doesn't make for a credible evaluation of risk. Even one single scientific study does not prove anything; it takes several studies that point to the same results to establish credible scientific evidence.

I-Like-To-Bike, your position is cleary understood from the majority of your posts. What is not clear is what scientific studies you are basing your points on.

As you said, one can say anything one likes; that doesn't make for a credible evaluation of risk. Even one single scientific study does not prove anything; it takes several studies that point to the same results to establish credible scientific evidence.

I-Like-To-Bike, your position is cleary understood from the majority of your posts.

I doubt it. Given your question I also doubt if you understood anything about measurement and evaluation of risk you would not ask such a question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleBigMan

What is not clear is what scientific studies you are basing your points on.
Please post the scientific studies that justify your position.

My position is that by definition a credible analysis of risk REQUIRES evaluation of the probability of mishap/exposure to the mishap(s) AND the severity level of the various mishaps. WITHOUT SEVERITY EVALUATION, you might as well be quoting random numbers; such incomplete raw numbers do NOT provide a basis for evaluating risk, PERIOD.

This basic fact about risk analysis techniques requires no scientific or counter proof to discredit a study, that for its creators' own purposes, redefines risk as any accident with no regard to severity.

The Wachtel and Lewiston so-called "risk" study makes no distinction between a skinned knee accident and a crippling permanent disability accident -i.e. it is worthless for comparative risk purposes. In fact there may not be any personal injury at all in some of these accidents, a dented car door qualifies as an accident for this study; no accident data is provided, only total numbers of undefined "accidents". Just like found in some other notoriously sloppy "risk analysis" oft quoted by VC gurus, a bent rim is equivalent in risk/danger value to a cyclist's crushed pelvis, or worse. And this kind of "stuff" doesn't get any more credible because someone who should know better (and discredits himself in the process) posts it on his web site or uses made-up phraseology like "crash rates" to cover up the insignificance of such meaningless numbers.

I don't think LittleBigMan was referring to I-Like-To-Bike's position about credible analysis of risk; I believe he was referring to his position(s) about traffic cycling.

I disagree that his position on traffic cycling is clearly understood. I, for one, don't understand it at all, and doubt that even I-Like-To-Bike understands what his position is. He appears to not understand it well enough to explain it to the rest of us very clearly, in any case, much less able to cite the studies upon which his postions are based.

Of course, for someone who understand how traffic works, and rides accordingly, sidewalk cycling is no more dangerous than roadway cycling.

The assertion that sidewalk cycling is more dangerous is based on studies of average cyclists who probably have little understanding of what situation is more hazardous than another, and are essentially riding at the mercy of motorists seeing them. Those people are less likely to be seen on sidewalks, and, hence, are more (1.8 times, apparently) at risk than when riding on the roadway.

This is one of the most rational posts in this thread.

On very rare occasions, I resort to a bit of sidewalk cycling to bypass a specific problem, such as having to make two successive left turns in heavy traffic or to get around an impassable curb-to-curb traffic jam. I select sidewalk segments which are wide, which have few, if any pedestrians, and which have few driveway cuts, I proceed at low speed, and I do not re-enter the street directly at an intersection without repositioning myself in a vehicular fashion.

I accept John Allen's risk statistic as a GENERAL AVERAGE guideline and note that it does not apply to me, for the reasons Serge mentioned above.

Are there really that many people riding regularly on the sidewalk instead of the road? I've been riding an awfully long time & the only people I see on the sidewalk are kids.
I think most adults realize that sidewalks were made for pedestians not bicyclists.